Miracles for the Masses

Question from Daniel:
Hi. I wanted to know if there is any mass revelation/miracle in The Vedas (i.e Miracles that were performed in front of many people)?

Answer by SmartLX:
I was a Christian once but I was never a Hindu, and never discussed religion with my few Hindu friends in school. Right off the bat I invite any Hindus reading this to comment right away and set us straight.

From what I can gather after some brief research is that the Vedas are not written as a history or a narrative like most books of the Bible are. The four Vedas mostly consist of hymns to the various gods (most intended to be heard in song rather than read), descriptions of rituals, and discussion of philosophy. There are bits of history woven into it all concerning the people from whom the texts emerged, but if they were ever intended to be taken as literal accounts of major events, Hindus tend not to take that view nowadays.

Your question is often used to advance an argument for the truth of Judaism, sometimes known as the Sinai argument, which claims that the supposedly uniquely mass-spectated nature of the miracles in the Torah supports their veracity. Christians sometimes argue along the same lines based on the story of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to five hundred people.

I’ll leave it to followers of other religions to make their own claims of mass revelations, but the basic problem with all of these stories is the same: accounts of witnesses are not witnesses. Each of these stories is still just one account, with only one source to believe or disbelieve regarding the number of people present. Contrast it with a big event happening in the middle of a city today; tweets and Facebook posts from hundreds of sources or more can flood the web, arguing over details but collectively leaving no doubt that something major went down. An account is an account even if it contains emojis.

3 thoughts on “Miracles for the Masses”

  1. “I’ll leave it to followers of other religions to make their own claims of mass revelations, but the basic problem with all of these stories is the same: accounts of witnesses are not witnesses.”
    Leave it to the Atheists and Evolutionists to morph the meaning of witness into something that could not be used to prove what they don’t want to accept. They can use the Universe being here and say it is by their god the “accident” But the Creationists can not claim that the Universe with all of its intricacies and marvels is evidence to prove that God is. They can claim that their god the “accident” made life, especially man. But refuse to at least admit that, that same life could be used as evidence for the possibility that an “Intelligent” being had to have created life, even though it is to complex to have been left in the hands of an accident. And now they want to change the meaning of the word witness. To mean someone who has a different testimony of different occurrences.

    1. Gerald writes: [Leave it to the Atheists and Evolutionists to morph the meaning of witness into something that could not be used to prove what they don’t want to accept.]

      Since the majority of “evolutionists” are religious and/or hold a belief in a personal deity, does this mean you think atheists and theists are morphing the meaning of witness? Also, what about the theory of evolution is pertinent to a discussion of witness claims of a mass miracle? If you wouldn’t mind clarifying these two logical disconnects for me I would be appreciative.

      [They can use the Universe being here and say it is by their god the “accident” But the Creationists can not claim that the Universe with all of its intricacies and marvels is evidence to prove that God is.]

      Gerald, you seem to still harbor some misunderstanding about what constitutes evidence scientifically, and what different segments of science investigate. Allow me to clear these up for you:
      a) The existence of the universe does not constitute evidence of how or why it came to be. The existence of the universe does not prove the existence of a god being, and it does not prove that the universe happened via quantum mechanics activity, and it does not prove any other origins concept. As has been pointed out to you many times already, existence does not prove source.
      b) No branch of science claims to know exactly how the universe got here. No one in science says it was an accident. What they say is “I don’t know”, because they don’t know. They say “I don’t know” because there isn’t enough data or empirical evidence to reach a sound conclusion about it.
      c) “Evolutionists” study the theory of evolution. That scientific theory has nothing to do with the universe or its origins. Why you would continue to think that people like biologists and geologists have anything to do with the study of the universe is beyond me. Perhaps “gravitationalists” or maybe “cosmosolgists” would assist you better. That way you can still avoid calling them scientists, which is a title that has nothing to do with their belief systems and just describes the methodology of how they study things…
      d) The universe is not intricate. It is absolutely huge, but size does not equate intricate. There are only four forces that govern the whole thing. Just four. There are just four types of chemical bonds. Just four. There are twelve elementary particles that all matter consists of. That is not “intricate” in any sense of the word.
      e) Complexity arguments are not arguments, as has been pointed out to you on a regular basis.

      [They can claim that their god the “accident” made life, especially man.]

      “Especially man”? Sorry, but man isn’t any more special than any other life form. All life evolved from the first simple protobiots. Life is chemically possible within the laws of the universe. Nothing “made” life. Life is just possible, and therefore could happen.

      [But refuse to at least admit that, that same life could be used as evidence for the possibility that an “Intelligent” being had to have created life, even though it is to complex to have been left in the hands of an accident.]

      Please see a) and e) above, which cover your second attempt in the same post to make existence and complexity arguments that you already know are erroneous.

      [And now they want to change the meaning of the word witness. To mean someone who has a different testimony of different occurrences.]

      LX is not changing the meaning of the word, but he does explain the specifics of its use. One writer in one book of the Bible claimed that there were many witnesses to an event. That is an unverified statement. In a court of law it would be considered heresay and not allowed into testimony, because there is no way to verify that the person making the claim actually knows or talked to all these people about that specific event. In other words, they could be lying, which as you already know Gerald is why personal revelation, experience, and other unverifiable claims are NOT evidence, because it cannot be validated. It is not an empirical claim.

  2. Tim you said “Gerald, you seem to still harbor some misunderstanding about what constitutes evidence scientifically, and what different segments of science investigate.”
    I don’t. You and every other Atheist have a problem with knowing what scientific evidence is. You want to have an already thought of assumption, and bend and twist whatever evidence you find to fit that preconceived assumption. In other it doesn’t matter what the factors are, you already say that it equals to Evolution. And even though those factors scream on their own “Intelligent Design” you want to muffle that cry and cover it with cotton and scream ” Evolution is vindicated” But I ask you. Look at the theory of gravity. It is as plain as the nose on your face. “what goes up, must come down” no one is saying “no, not so” It is as accepted as the fact that mothers love their babies. The effects are seen every day. The same with aerodynamics. Sure there was some “not going to happen” but today, must everyone struts onto a plane, without a second thought. The same with spaceflight. But, now look at the theory of a flat earth, it always had those who, had their doubts, even though they, like the Creationists of today, were ridiculed, by others who just went along with the flow. Until someone pointed out that it just wasn’t’ true. So, why, if the theory of Evolution is so what you are suggesting that Evolution is, are there so many saying “liar, liar pants on fire”. Why hasn’t Evolution been placed along with the theory of Gravity, and such? It is because there is just no proof. And what you and all the other undisciplined thinkers don’t realize is that it does not make sense. It is stupid and ludicrous, to even try to imagine that all life had its beginning in one simple one celled organism or microbe of some kind. And that it was able to at will transform itself into all other kind of species. And then the Evolutionist, want to hide the question that they hope no one evers ask, ” why isn’t it happening today?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *